Ultra-late response (> 24 weeks) to anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine: a multicenter, prospective, observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Nearly 60% of migraine patients treated with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway experience a ≥ 50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) at 12 weeks compared to baseline (responders). However, approximately half of the patients not responding to anti-CGRP mAbs ≤ 12 weeks do respond ≤ 24 weeks (late responders). We assessed frequency and characteristics of patients responding to anti-CGRP mAbs only > 24 weeks (ultra-late responders). METHODS: In this multicenter (n = 16), prospective, observational, real-life study, we enrolled all consecutive adults affected by high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM: ≥ 8 days/month) or chronic migraine (CM), with ≥ 3 prior therapeutic failures, treated with any anti-CGRP mAbs for ≥ 48 weeks. We defined responders patients with a ≥ 50% response rate ≤ 12 weeks, late responders those with a ≥ 50% response rate ≤ 24 weeks, and ultra-late responders those achieving a ≥ 50% response only > 24 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 572 migraine patients completed ≥ 48 weeks of anti-CGRP mAbs treatment. Responders accounted for 60.5% (346/572), late responders for 15% (86/572), and ultra-late responders for 15.7% (90/572). Among ultra-late responders, 7.3% (42/572) maintained the ≥ 50% response rate across all subsequent time intervals (weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, and 48) and were considered persistent ultra-late responders, while 8.4% (48/572) missed the ≥ 50% response rate at ≥ 1 subsequent time interval and were classified as fluctuating ultra-late responders. Fifty patients (8.7%) did not respond at any time interval ≤ 48 weeks. Ultra-late responders differed from responders for higher BMI (p = 0.033), longer duration of medication overuse (p < 0.001), lower NRS (p = 0.017) and HIT-6 scores (p = 0.002), higher frequency of dopaminergic symptoms (p = 0.002), less common unilateral pain-either alone (p = 0.010) or in combination with UAS (p = 0.023), allodynia (p = 0.043), or UAS and allodynia (p = 0.012)-a higher number of comorbidities (p = 0.012), psychiatric comorbidities (p = 0.010) and a higher proportion of patients with ≥ 1 comorbidity (p = 0.020). CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of patients not responding to anti-CGRP mAbs ≤ 24 weeks do respond later, while non-responders ≤ 48 weeks are quite rare (8.7%). These findings suggest to rethink the duration of migraine prophylaxis and the definition of resistant and refractory migraine, currently based on the response after 2-3 months of treatment.

Early and sustained efficacy of fremanezumab over 24-weeks in migraine patients with multiple preventive treatment failures: the multicenter, prospective, real-life FRIEND2 study.

BACKGROUND: To verify the long-term (24-week) efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fremanezumab in real-life patients with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM: ≥ 8 days/month) or chronic migraine (CM: ≥ 15 days/month), and multiple preventive treatment failures. METHODS: This is a prospective, cohort, real-life study at 28 headache centers on consecutive patients affected by HFEM or CM with multiple preventive treatment failures who were prescribed subcutaneous fremanezumab (225 mg monthly/675 mg quarterly) for ≥ 24 weeks. Primary endpoint was the change in monthly migraine days (MMDs) in HFEM and monthly headache days (MHDs) in CM at weeks 21-24 compared to baseline. Secondary endpoints encompassed changes in monthly analgesic medications, ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and 100% responder rates, and variation in NRS, HIT-6 and MIDAS scores at the same time interval. Changes in MMDs/MHDs, monthly analgesic medications, ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and 100% responder rates, and variation in NRS and HIT-6 scores at week 4 were also monitored. RESULTS: Four hundred ten patients who had received ≥ 1 dose of fremanezumab were considered for safety analysis while 148 patients treated for ≥ 24 weeks were included in the efficacy analysis. At weeks 21-24, fremanezumab significantly (p < 0.001) reduced MMDs, MHDs, monthly analgesic medications and NRS, HIT-6, and MIDAS scores in both HFEM and CM compared to baseline. The proportions of ≥ 50%, ≥ 75% and 100% responders at weeks 21-24were 75.0%, 30.8%, 9.6% (HFEM), and 72.9, 44.8 and 1% (CM). A significant (p < 0.001) decrease in MMDs, MHDs, monthly analgesic medications and NRS, HIT-6, and MIDAS scores in both HFEM and CM was already present at week 4. The proportions of ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and 100% responders at week 4 were 67.6%, 32.4%, 11.8% (HFEM) and 67.3%, 40%, 1.8% (CM). CM remitted to episodic migraine and medication overuse to no-medication overuse in 83.3 and 75% of patients at week 24, and in 80 and 72.4% at week 4. Adverse events were rare (2.4%), mild and transient. No patient discontinued treatment for any reason. CONCLUSIONS: Fremanezumab is characterized by an early and sustained efficacy in HFEM and CM patients with multiple preventive treatment failures in real-life, revealing an optimal safety and tolerability profile.

Predictors of response to anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies: a 24-week, multicenter, prospective study on 864 migraine patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The identification of predictors of response to antiCGRP mAbs could favor tailored therapies and personalized treatment plans. This study is aimed at investigating predictors of ≥ 50%, ≥ 75% and 100% response at 24 weeks in patients with high-frequency episodic (HFEM: 8-14 days/month) or chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: This is a large, multicenter, cohort, real-life study. We considered all consecutive adult patients affected by HFEM or CM who were prescribed antiCGRP mAbs for ≥ 24 weeks in 20 headache centers. Patients were interviewed face-to-face using a shared semi-structured questionnaire carefully exploring socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. Patients received subcutaneous erenumab (70 mg or140 mg, monthly), galcanezumab (120 mg monthly, following a 240 mg loading dose), or fremanezumab (225 mg, monthly or 675 mg, quarterly) according to drug market availability, physician's choice, or patient's preference. The primary endpoint of the study was the assessment of ≥ 50% response predictors at 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints included ≥ 75% and 100% response predictors at 24 weeks. RESULTS: Eight hundred sixty-four migraine patients had been treated with antiCGRP mAbs for ≥ 24 weeks (erenumab: 639 pts; galcanezumab: 173 pts; fremanezumab: 55 pts). The ≥50% response (primary endpoint) in HFEM was positively associated with unilateral pain (UP) + unilateral cranial autonomic symptoms (UAs) (OR:4.23, 95%CI:1.57-11.4; p = 0.004), while in CM was positively associated with UAs (OR:1.49, 95%CI:1.05-2.11; p = 0.026), UP + UAs (OR:1.90, 95%CI:1.15-3.16; p = 0.012), UP + allodynia (OR:1.71, 95%CI:1.04-2.83; p = 0.034), and negatively associated with obesity (OR:0.21, 95%CI:0.07-0.64; p = 0.006). The 75% response (secondary endpoint) was positively associated with UP + UAs in HFEM (OR:3.44, 95%CI:1.42-8.31; p = 0.006) and with UP + UAs (OR:1.78, 95%CI:1.14-2.80; p = 0.012) and UP + allodynia (OR:1.92, 95%CI:1.22-3.06; p = 0.005) in CM. No predictor of 100% response emerged in patients with HFEM or CM. CONCLUSIONS: A critical evaluation of headache characteristics indicating peripheral or central sensitization may help in predicting responsiveness to antiCGRP mAbs in HFEM and CM. A more precise pain profiling may represent a steppingstone for a mechanism-based approach and personalized treatment of migraine with compounds targeting specific molecular mechanisms.

Self-administered subcutaneous diclofenac sodium in acute migraine attack: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-finding pilot study.

BACKGROUND: A novel formulation of diclofenac, complexed with hydroxypropyl-ß-cyclodextrin (HPßCD) as a solubility enhancer, in a prefilled syringe for self-administered subcutaneous injection may overcome the limitations of acute migraine treatments administered by oral, rectal, intramuscular, or intravenous routes. METHODS: This multicentre, phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-finding pilot study evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of three different doses (25/50/75 mg/1 mL) of subcutaneous diclofenac sodium in the treatment of an acute migraine attack in 122 subjects. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients pain-free at 2 hours after the study drug injection. RESULTS: A significantly higher percentage of patients in the 50 mg diclofenac group 14 (46.7%) were pain-free at 2 hours when compared with placebo: 9 (29.0%) (p = 0.01). The 50 mg dose proved superior to placebo also in the majority of the secondary endpoints. The overall global impression favoured diclofenac vs placebo. There were no adverse events leading to study withdrawal. The majority of treatment-emergent adverse events were mild. CONCLUSIONS: The 50 mg dose of this novel formulation of diclofenac represents a valuable self-administered option for the acute treatment of migraine attacks.Trial registration: EudraCT Registration No. 2017-004828-29.

Applications of Ketogenic Diets in Patients with Headache: Clinical Recommendations.

Headaches are among the most prevalent and disabling neurologic disorders and there are several unmet needs as current pharmacological options are inadequate in treating patients with chronic headache, and a growing interest focuses on nutritional approaches as non-pharmacological treatments. Among these, the largest body of evidence supports the use of the ketogenic diet (KD). Exactly 100 years ago, KD was first used to treat drug-resistant epilepsy, but subsequent applications of this diet also involved other neurological disorders. Evidence of KD effectiveness in migraine emerged in 1928, but in the last several year's different groups of researchers and clinicians began utilizing this therapeutic option to treat patients with drug-resistant migraine, cluster headache, and/or headache comorbid with metabolic syndrome. Here we describe the existing evidence supporting the potential benefits of KDs in the management of headaches, explore the potential mechanisms of action involved in the efficacy in-depth, and synthesize results of working meetings of an Italian panel of experts on this topic. The aim of the working group was to create a clinical recommendation on indications and optimal clinical practice to treat patients with headaches using KDs. The results we present here are designed to advance the knowledge and application of KDs in the treatment of headaches.

Narrative Medicine to integrate patients', caregivers' and clinicians' migraine experiences: the DRONE multicentre project.

BACKGROUND: Although migraine is widespread and disabling, stigmatisation and poor awareness of the condition still represent barriers to effective care; furthermore, research on migraine individual and social impact must be enhanced to unveil neglected issues, such as caregiving burden. The project investigated the migraine illness experience through Narrative Medicine (NM) to understand daily life, needs and personal resources of migraneurs, their caregivers and clinicians, and to provide insights for clinical practice. METHODS: The project involved 13 Italian headache centres and targeted migraneurs, their caregivers and migraine specialists at these centres. Written narratives, composed by a sociodemographic survey and illness plot or parallel chart, were collected through the project's webpage. Illness plots and parallel charts employed open words to encourage participants' expression. Narratives were analysed through Nvivo software, interpretive coding and NM classifications. RESULTS: One hundred and seven narratives were collected from patients and 26 from caregivers, as well as 45 parallel charts from clinicians. The analysis revealed migraine perception in social, domestic and work life within the care pathway evolution and a bond between chaos narratives and day loss due to migraine; furthermore, narratives suggested the extent of the caregiving burden and a risk of underestimation of migraine burden in patients' and caregivers' life. CONCLUSION: The project represents the first investigation on migraine illness experience through NM simultaneously considering migraneurs', caregivers' and clinicians' perspectives. Comparing narratives and parallel charts allowed to obtain suggestions for clinical practice, while NM emerged as able to foster the pursuing of migraine knowledge and awareness.

Erenumab in the prevention of high-frequency episodic and chronic migraine: Erenumab in Real Life in Italy (EARLY), the first Italian multicenter, prospective real-life study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of erenumab in a real-life migraine population, while trying to identify responsiveness predictors. BACKGROUND: Erenumab is a fully human Ig-2 monoclonal antibody blocking the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, indicated for migraine prophylaxis. Phase II and III trials demonstrated that erenumab is effective, safe, and well tolerated in the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine (CM), showing an early onset of action. METHODS: This is a multicenter, prospective, cohort, and real-life study. We considered for enrolment all consecutive patients aged 18-65 affected by high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) or CM, with or without medication overuse, visited at nine Italian Headache Centers from December 20, 2018 to September 30, 2019. Each patient was treated with erenumab 70 mg, administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. Treatment duration was planned to last from 6 to 12 months, depending on the patient's response. The primary endpoint was the change in monthly migraine days (MMDs) at weeks 9-12 compared to baseline. Secondary endpoints included changes in monthly analgesics intake, ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% responder rates and any variation in the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Headache Impact Test scores (HIT). RESULTS: In total, 372 migraine patients were treated with at least one dose of erenumab 70 mg. At weeks 9-12, erenumab decreased MMDs by 4.5 ± 4.1 days (mean ± SD) in patients with HFEM and by 9.3 ± 9.1 (mean ± SD) days in those with CM compared to baseline. At weeks 9-12 VAS score was reduced by 1.9 ± 1.9 (mean ± SD), HIT score by 10.7 ± 8.8 (mean ± SD), and median monthly analgesics intake passed from 12.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 10.0-14.0) to 5.0 (IQR 3.0-7.0) in HFEM. In CM patients, VAS was reduced by 1.7 ± 2.0 (mean ± SD), HIT by 9.7 ± 10.4 (mean ± SD), and median monthly analgesics intake passed from 20.0 (IQR 15.0-30.0) to 8.0 (IQR 5.0-15.0). At week 12, ≥50% responders were 60/101 (59.4%) for HFEM and 146/263 (55.5%) for CM, ≥75% responders were 17/101 (16.8%) and 59/263 (22.4%) and 100% responders 1/101 (1.0%) and 3/263 (1.1%), respectively. Erenumab responsiveness in HFEM was positively associated with unilateral pain localization (OR: 3.03, 95% CI: 1.24-7.40; p = 0.015), whereas in CM responsiveness was positively associated with and baseline migraine frequency (OR: 1.06, 95% CI:1.02-1.11; p = 0.031), dopaminergic symptoms (OR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.14-3.52; p = 0.015), and negatively associated with psychiatric comorbidities (OR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.20-0.93; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab 70 mg is effective, safe, and well tolerated in real life. Easily obtainable clinical features might be of help in predicting patient's responsiveness.

Primaries non-migraine headaches treatment: a review.

In the "headache world," great attention has always been paid to migraine patients, especially for the research and development of new therapies. For the other forms of primary headaches, especially those of Chapters 2 and 3 of the classification, there are however therapies that, even if not specific, can give significant results. Tension-type headache recognizes in NSAIDs the most effective drugs to treat acute attack, while prevention is based on the use of tricyclic antidepressants and muscle relaxants. For TACs, the discussion is more complex: first of all, there are two forms of primary headache that respond absolutely to indomethacin. For these, the main problem is how to manage the possible side effects arising from prolonged treatments and possibly what to use as an alternative. For cluster headaches and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks, we have drugs with good efficacy as regards medical therapy, such as verapamil or lamotrigine, but in recent years, neuromodulation techniques, both surgical and non-invasive, have also been affirming themselves, which represent a more possibility for forms of headache that are often very disabling and resistant to common analgesics.

Current and emerging evidence-based treatment options in chronic migraine: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine is a disabling condition that is currently underdiagnosed and undertreated. In this narrative review, we discuss the future of chronic migraine management in relation to recent progress in evidence-based pharmacological treatment. FINDINGS: Patients with chronic migraine require prophylactic therapy to reduce the frequency of migraine attacks, but the only currently available evidence-based prophylactic treatment options for chronic migraine are topiramate and onabotulinumtoxinA. Improved prophylactic therapy is needed to reduce the high burden of chronic migraine in Italy. Monoclonal antibodies that target the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway of migraine pathogenesis have been specifically developed for the prophylactic treatment of chronic migraine. These anti-CGRP/R monoclonal antibodies have demonstrated good efficacy and excellent tolerability in phase II and III clinical trials, and offer new hope to patients who are currently not taking any prophylactic therapy or not benefitting from their current treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of chronic migraine is a dynamic and rapidly advancing area of research. New developments in this field have the potential to improve the diagnosis and provide more individualised treatments for this condition. Establishing a culture of prevention is essential for reducing the personal, social and economic burden of chronic migraine.

When does the brain choose pain?

Why does the brain choose pain? Why does an organ that is able to mask pain, even when intense as in fractures or in fighting wounds, decide to let pain pass and begin conscious, such as that of migraine, when there is no noxa patogena and there is no threat to the integrity of the organism, failing in the main function of pain, that of protection? In this brief review, we retrace the journey that led to the identification of the first complex mechanism of regulation of painful input, the spinal gate control system, through the identification of the predominantly thalamocortical supraspinal centers of the neuromatrix, up to the recognition of a pain matrix extremely articulate and sophisticated that integrates elementary sensations with much more complex functions, related to memory, affectivity, emotion, autonomic self-regulation, and homeostasis systems and so on. Why does the protection system lose its fundamental function in migraine in a behavioral harakiri that periodically damages only itself? This is the challenge facing those dealing with primary headaches in the next future: why migraine? The great strides made in the last decades that have led to the understanding of complex pathogenetic mechanisms risk remaining orphans if we fail to identify the primum movens at the base of one of the most common pathologies in the human race.

Real-world insights on the management of migraine patients: an Italian nationwide study.

Objectives: Understanding migraine management using data from a sample of patients representative of the Italian general adult population.Methods: Retrospective analysis on IQVIA Italian Longitudinal Patient Database. Two cohorts were created. (a) The triptan user cohort included patients with triptan prescriptions between November 2015 and October 2016. Migraine days were estimated counting triptan and indometacin/caffeine/prochlorperazine (ICP) pills prescribed during the 6 months following first triptan prescription. Patients were categorized as having episodic (EM) or chronic (CM) migraine based on the number of migraine days following International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria. (b) The migraine preventive treatment (MPT) user cohort included patients with MPT prescriptions during the period June 2016-May 2017. MPTs considered included beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, antiepileptics, antidepressants and antiserotoninergics. Migraine days experienced by MPTs users were estimated counting triptan and ICP pills prescribed during the 6 months following the most recent MPT prescription, while the number of MPT switches was estimated based on MPT prescriptions during the previous two years.Results: There were 9461 patients with triptan prescriptions to treat migraine acute attacks, which accounted yearly for 0.8% of general adult population. CM patients accounted for 3% of triptan users. There were 2004 patients prescribed with MPTs, which accounted for 0.16% of general adult population. Overall, among MPT users, 291 (15%) were still experiencing at least four migraine days/month, with this proportion increasing with the increase in the number of MPT switches.Conclusions: Results from this study suggest an unmet need in the management of migraine: too many patients did not receive MPTs, with this potentially due to several reasons requiring further investigations. Furthermore, even among patients receiving MPTs, disease control level with now available drugs seems to be sub-optimal.

Validation of a self-reported instrument to assess work-related difficulties in patients with migraine: the HEADWORK questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The degree to which work-related difficulties are recognized in headache research is poor and often carried out with inadequate information such as "reduced ability to work as usual", which do not capture at all the variety of difficulties and the factors that impact over them. The aim of this paper is to present the validation of the HEADWORK questionnaire, which addresses the amount and severity of difficulties in work-related tasks and the factors that impact over them. METHODS: We developed a set of items based on a previous literature review and patients' focus groups and tested it on a wide set of patients with episodic and chronic migraine attending eight different Italian headache centers. HEADWORK factor structure was assessed with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis; internal consistency and construct validity were addressed as well. RESULTS: The validation sample (N = 373) was mostly composed of patients with episodic migraine without aura (64.3%) and of females (81%). Factor analysis retrieved two different scales: "Work-related difficulties", composed of eleven items which explain 67.1% of the total variance, and "Factors contributing to work difficulties", composed of six items which explain 52.1% of the total variance. Both HEADWORK subscales have good measurement properties, with higher scores being associated to higher disability, lower quality of life, lower productivity, higher headache frequency and pain intensity. CONCLUSIONS: HEADWORK is a 17-item, two-scale questionnaire addressing the impact of migraine on work-related difficulties in terms of difficulties in general or specific skills, and the factors contributing to these difficulties, defined as negative impact on work tasks. It can be used to address disability weights for the purpose of calculating the burden of migraine, and to assess the balance between therapeutic and side effects of medication on productivity.